From the “non-news in the MSM because it doesn’t support the cause” department comes this inconvenient study from the NIOZ ROYAL NETHERLANDS INSTITUTE FOR SEA RESEARCH.
Unexpected result: Ocean acidification can also promote shell formation
Proton pumping accompanies calcification in foraminifera
Fact: More carbon dioxide (CO2) in the air also acidifies the oceans. It seemed to be the logical conclusion that shellfish and corals will suffer, because chalk formation becomes more difficult in more acidic seawater. But now a group of Dutch and Japanese scientists discovered to their own surprise that some tiny unicellular shellfish make better shells in an acidic environment. This is a completely new insight.
Researchers from the NIOZ (Royal Dutch Institute for Sea Research) and JAMSTEC (Japanese Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology) found in their experiments that so-called foraminifera might even make their shells better in more acidic water. These single-celled foraminifera shellfish occur in huge numbers in the oceans. The results of the study are published in the leading scientific journal Nature Communications.
Since 1750 the acidity of the ocean has increased by 30%. According to the prevailing theory and related experiments with calcareous algae and shellfish, limestone (calcium carbonate) dissolves more easily in acidic water. The formation of lime by shellfish and corals is more difficult because less carbonate is available under acidic conditions. The carbonate-ion relates directly to dissolved carbon dioxide via two chemical equilibrium reactions.
Self-regulating biochemical magic trick
The classical theory is based on purely chemical processes by which the rate at which lime is created is determined entirely by the acidity of the water. NIOZ researcher and shared first author Lennart de Nooijer: “In our experiments the foraminifera were regulating the acidity at the micro level. In the places where shell formation occurs, the acidity was substantially lower than in the surrounding seawater. Foraminifera expel large amounts of hydrogen ions through their cell wall. This leads to acidification of their immediate micro-environment causing the equilibrium between carbon dioxide and carbonate to change in favour of carbon dioxide. The organism take up the increased concentration of carbon dioxide quickly through its cell wall. On the inner side of the cell wall, a low acidity prevails due to the massive excretion of protons. Under these conditions the ingested carbon dioxide is again converted to carbonate, which reacts with calcium to form lime. Such an active biochemical regulation mechanism has never been found before.”
Can self-regulating single-celled organisms lead to a more rapid global warming?
The surface layer of the ocean is in equilibrium with the atmosphere. Therefore, more carbon dioxide in the air also leads to more dissolved carbon dioxide in the ocean’s surface . “This finding may have important implications for the relationship between carbon dioxide levels in the air and the formation of calcareous structures by organisms,” says co-author Professor Gert-Jan Reichart. “If the classic hypothesis holds and more carbon dioxide leads to less lime production, the oceans can continue to take up CO2 from the atmosphere. But what if the majority of the organisms can regulate the chemical form of their inorganic carbon by biochemical processes like our foraminifers did, and continue to form lime structures in a more acidic ocean? Over time, the concentration of dissolved carbon dioxide in the oceans may start to increase. Consequently, the ability of the oceans to take up a large part of the carbon dioxide in the air may start to decrease. This would mean that more carbon dioxide would remain in the air, leading to a more rapid warming of our planet.”
###
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
What does it mean to “increase acidity” by 30% ? The oceans were and are alkaline. Since pH is a log quantity, are they simply trying to indicate that the pH has shifted by 0.3, i.e. a 30% increase in H+ ions (or equivalent)?
The CAGW crowd is expert at using language that distorts reality. Welcome to the post-modern world of Marxist ideology.
Yes, once they used the word acidity, they lost me on believability. Why can’t these morons just say lower pH?
Its worse. pH is a log scale. Oceans have changed maybe 0.1 pH (measurements are tricky, and it depends on how barrennor fertile the ocean is where measured) based onnbarren Station Aloha. 0.1 pH is a 30% increase in hydrogen ions. So this is a way to ‘accurately exaggerate’.
“So this is a way to ‘accurately exaggerate’.”
No, it’s actually the figure that matters. H⁺ by itself is insignificant; there is far too little of it to change anything. It becomes significant through its participation in equilibria through the law of Mass Action, in expressions like
[H⁺][CO₃⁻⁻]/[HCO₃⁻]=K
which relates the far more abundant carbonate species. So at constant [HCO₃⁻] (and it stays reasonably constant), a 30% rise in [H⁺] means a 30% drop in [CO₃⁻⁻]. That is what matters.
ristvan, you are right.
Nick, you are right..
Most of the world won’t have a clue what you’re talking about – you’ll never get over their misconceptions. This is where physics and chemistry should give way to biology. Ocean acidification is kidology with knobs on.
Sorry Nick…. You are wrong. Easy chemistry experiment proves otherwise. Bubble CO2 into a flask of distilled water containing a few grams of finely powdered CaCO3. Guess what happens… the pH stays up around 8 until ALL of the CaCO3 is dissolved. Both the HCO3- and CO3—increase while the H+ stays nearly constant. Sorry to burst your bubble. The lousy experiments done by many of the warmists refuse to buffer their solutions like nature has done.
alcheson,
“the pH stays up around 8 until ALL of the CaCO3 is dissolved”
Yes, but that is in a context where you say a 30% change is a mere 0.1 pH. In fact, pH is going down (a little) whenever you are adding CO₂. If you take the reaction as
CaCO₃+CO₂+H₂O ⇌ Ca⁺⁺+2HCO₃⁻
and assume Ca⁺⁺ is in excess and activity of CaCO₃ is constant until dissolved, then
[HCO₃⁻]²/[CO₂] = K1 constant
and from acid-base equilibrium
[HCO₃⁻][H⁺]/[CO₂] = K2 = constant
so [H⁺]²/[CO₂]=K2²/K1
and [HCO₃⁻]/[H⁺] = K1/K2
The pH is related to the concentration of reagents, and so to the progress of the reaction. It’s because of these ratios that the 30% increase in [H⁺] is the right thing to talk about. It flows through into % changes in the main reagents.
Nick. After all these years you have spent over here, how many skeptics have you converted into believing a man made proportion in an atmospheric trace gas (0.04%) controls the atmospheric temperature? Do you really believe having more success by claiming it’s driving the oceanic pH too? And if it would be only that. Now you seem to claim one of the most common rocks in the lithosphere, limestone/chalk (CaCO3), is running out because of this trace gas proportion. Take a break man.
Nick… seem to overlook
HCO₃⁻ H+ + CO₃⁻⁻
[ H⁺][CO₃⁻⁻]/[HCO₃⁻] = k2= constant
Or at constant pH…. [CO₃⁻⁻]/[HCO₃⁻] = constant
Thus at equilibrium as [HCO₃⁻] increases with addition of CO2… so does [CO₃⁻⁻].
As you just noted, when adding CO2 to a beaker of finally powered calcium carbonate, when you have added enough CO2 to dissolve fully HALF of the calcium carbonate, the pH is….. 8.2.
Measuring the pH of the top surface layer of water is NOT at equilibrium at that is NOT where the
Crustaceans live. The floor of the ocean where they live is lined with gigatons of calcium carbonate rich minerals. Even when the atmosphere was at 3000ppm, the oceans were basic and teeming with live and crustaceans. To claim that now, at a mere 400ppm, barely above the threshold to support live, the oceans are going to become an acid bath, dissolving all of our crustaceans is a bit far-fetched and totally without merit.
difficult to measure when there is such a variance in Ph-
pH (Marine) – Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines – CCME
ceqg-rcqe.ccme.ca/download/en/203
The pH of marine waters is usually quite stable (between. 7.5 and 8.5 worldwide)
It means:
pH1 ~8.2 (then,… whatever “then” was?)
pH2 ~8.1 (now)
pH = -log10 (ah+)
a(h+1)= 6.31E-09
a(h+2)= 7.93E-09
(7.93 – 6.31) / 6.31 x 100% = 26% ~ 30%.
But the reality is most pH meters today are good to +/- 0.1 pH units. So the difference (8.2 – 8.1 pH) is really still within measurement uncertainty and even worse there were no pH meters in the 18th ceentury. pH and analytic acid base chemistry were not developed until the 2 half of the 19th century.
Besides which, how do you determine an average pH for all the oceans of the world now, let alone in AD 1750?
Gloateus,
A: by rectal extraction.
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/11/the-chemistry-of-ocean-ph-and-acidification/
The ocean acidification threat is a big can of worms. I asked Professor Brice Bosnich to help create a quick reference page on the chemistry and was pleased he could find the time to help. Here’s everything you wanted to know about the basics…
He explains what pH means, and points out that:
Ocean pH varies by 0.3 naturally.
Claims of acidification since 1750 are based on dubious models and few observations.
There are reasons to assume that marine life will not be overly affected by an increase in ocean acidity due to atmospheric carbon dioxide:
Ocean life evolved and survived far higher levels of CO2 for millions of years in the past.
Marine organisms actively create carbonate shells (using energy) which means crustacea, corals and molluscs aren’t automatically prey to pH changes in the same way that say a limestone rock would be.
The world’s oceans may have warmed a mere 0.17C since 1955, hardly a significant threat to marine life.
We also find out that acidic water is added to the ocean from rainfall and floods (and he explains why raindrops will always be acidic).
Joel,
I hope that thermometer was well lubricated.
GM,
Something else to consider is that the shells of organisms are commonly not bare calcite or aragonite exposed to the water. The organisms often coat their shells with mucus or karatinous coverings to help them resist transient pH changes encountered with upwelling..
joelobryan,
Currently they measure ocean pH colorometric with better than 0.001 pH unit and another feature of the oceans is that in most places one can calculate the pH from other, more accurate known measurements. Thus even from early measurements, but in general that isn’t done, except to compare both methods in modern times.
There are some 6 fixed stations where there are series of measurements over longer periods, the longest being Bermuda and Hawaii. Here for Bermuda:
http://www.biogeosciences.net/9/2509/2012/bg-9-2509-2012.pdf
and for Hawaii:
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/30/12235.full.pdf
“…there were no pH meters in the 18th ceentury.”
So how do we know the ph changed? Or did the warmists just make it up. 30% is, after all, a nice big scary number. That appears to be it’s sole purpose.
Hivemind,
They calculated the pH from the changes in the atmosphere (measured in ice cores). Ocean pH chemistry is well known. Even if there is local variability (due to seasonal growth of bio-life), the average DIC (all inorganic carbon species together) in the oceans and atmospheric CO2 go up in parallel (10% of the atmospheric change in the oceans).
That is measured in 6 fixed series over the past decades and over 3 million samples by seaships, be it more sporadic over longer periods. pH in older measurements were by far not sufficient accurate to show the long term pH drop of ~0,1 unit, but can be calculated from other accurate measurements: DIC and total alkalinity. That confirms the general trend. The main change anyway is in the last decades, as the main CO2 increase is in that time span…
Not that anyone need to worry about such a drop: no fish, coral or foramin has problems with changes of 1 pH unit in a day (measured within coral reefs)…
MikeP not by 0.3 su, but 0.1 su. Technically it’s a 26% increase in [H+], but rounding is nice.
“Since 1750 the acidity of the ocean has increased by 30%”
It means a load of rubbish.
There is absolutely no way that could know the pH of the oceans to one decimal place in 1750.
The maths is done below for the 30% increase
from a pH of 8.1. it would require something like a 2000% increase in “acidity” (lol) to get to neutral.
(I did that calc ages ago so number is from memory, someone else can check it if you could be bothered)
Actually the maths is done by Joel… above this post.. not below
In 1750 pH measurement was done by titration. Given even the best quality glassware and reagents back then it would have taken extensive multiple calibrations to document the accuracy. Even then the indicator reagents has fairly broad ranges. Phenolphthalein has a useful range at pH 8.2. At pH 8.2 it changes color from colorless to a reddish pink. However, unlike a meter, there is no way to tell if it is 8.2- bit or 8.2+ a bit.
They also could have used multiple pH indicators with blends of different chemicals. These are often still available as paper strips. The difficulty is that the results depend on the accuracy of the chemical blend and the vision of the analyst. At best they are good for differences of about 1 pH unit. A really good analyst might be able to estimate to .5pH units.
The only way to accurate results is with instrumentation. It is extremely difficult to measure pH in small volumes such as in the cell membrane of a diatom.
“In 1750 pH measurement was done by titration.”
pH measurement can’t be done by titration. That just balances quantities. What people did do in older times was to measure total alkalinity by titration, and dissolved inorganic carbon gravimetrically. Then you can work out pH from lab equilibrium constants.
Was anyone actually measuring global oceanic pH in 1750? To 0.1 accuracy? I find that very hard to believe.
pH is a measure for the number of free Hydrogen ions in a solution. Therefore, the concept must necessarily be predated by the concept of an ion. This in its turn is intimately related to our knowledge of atomic structure. Which dates to the late 19th and early 20th century. The pH itself made its glorious entry about 1909. So the answer to your question is a resounding NO.
Thank you Ed. I knew there was a funny smell in the room 🙂
There has been no large scale of pH measurements around the globe. There have been a few isolated measurements near land and some a various depths. The pH various considerably from the surface through to depth and various around the globe due upwelling of cold water from depths eg off the western coast of Mexico.The range of pH is 8.3 to 7.6. Nowhere is the ocean acidic. Around Pacific islands such as Fiji, Samoa, Tahiti and Tuvalu the pH has averaged around 8.1 for at least 30 years of measurement. To talk about pH measurements in 1750 before European contact is absolute nonsense. The best one can say with the variaations and accuracy of measurement is that there has been no satistically significant change.
This article is complete BS from start to finish, starting with “increased acidity”.
Pure alarmist BS is all.
The correct term would be “neutralise”, not “acidify”.
Pure alarmist BS is all.
The correct term would be “neutralise”, not “acidify”.
“Since 1750 the acidity of the ocean has increased by 30%.”
How is it possible that such an ignorant meanless statement is embraced by scientists?
They’re not scientists.
“NIOZ conducts fundamental and frontier-applied scientific research in estuarine and delta areas, coastal seas and oceans around the world. The results are published in internationally leading journals, while the research data is made accessible online.”
Sorry Gary, you don’t get to define who a scientist is. The statement is absolutely supported by people with a doctorate in science and that do research and publish: scientists.
Dan,
To be a scientist, you have to use the scientific method. This false statement is blatantly anti-scientific. Any chemistry undergrad would know better.
Dan, you don’t understand. A person with a doctorate is simply incapable of having an agenda or use their position to present science in a way that advances a social agenda. It just can’t happen. It’s quite unpossible.
Cross,
Yup. Activist “scientists” abuse their positions just as do “journalists”.
“supported by people with a doctorate in science”
Who obviously do not know where calcium carbonate comes from.
Dan: Men can call themselves women now. I guess language has no meaning, even in the world of science. A scientist is anyone who agrees with global warming, right?
PhD often stands for Permanent Head Damage, caused by excessive long term fixation and study of one very limited element of the very many scientific subjects within the many different scientific disciplines. They get tunnel vision and cannot do the lateral thinking needed when elements outside their ultra specialist and narrow domain are involved, and particularly if they have to also attempt to do the joined up thinking needed between more than one subject and discipline!
Ah Dan, appeals to authority, in this case self professed authority… that always wins me over!
But Dan? I’ve spent the past 4 decades closely studying the distribution of butt hairs on Nubian Goats. I believe that qualifies me as a climate scientist? So my opinion on the subject is unquestionable.
I forgot to mention what my opinion is: Linda Hamilton will give birth to John Conner, who defeats the machines in 2029 by going back in time and killing Arnold Schwarzenegar in 1984.
Take off your clothes. Give them to me. Now.
I stopped reading at that point. They indicated they were activists and not scientists so why bother?
Because saying the pH has maybe changed from pH 8.2 (+/- 0.1) down to pH 8.1 (+/- 0.1) over the last 160 years doesn’t sound scary for the alarmist hacks.
It would be nice to see if foraminifera´s proton pump can be inhibited by omeprazole.
Exactly. I wonder if I can drink seawater instead of taking omeprazole. I can get seawater free at the bottom of my garden when the tide is in.
urederra
love it +1
Just one more piece of evidence that Gaia is a stable system thanks to negative feedback loops.
Sorry, but Gaia is not a stable system.. She is constantly sequestering CO2 in the form of shells and carbonates, that means that carbon is constantly being removed from the Carbon Cycle.
The saw tooth graphs you see, have the atmospheric CO2 content dropping regularly to plant death levels.
I suspect that at each low point the world had a big die back of the biosphere, with less and less biosphere growing back after each drop.
Gaia can be truly thankful that humans developed technology that started to release small amounts of sequestered carbon into the carbon cycle. This probably saved the planet.
forgot pic
“This probably saved the planet.” Maybe this is just an intelligence test that God threw into the plan? All planets that evolve animal life smart enough to dig out the carbon to save their source of food get a gold star!
If you believe in God, you must also believe that HE put all that sequestered carbon there for us to use when we became clever enough to do so. These things don’t happen by accident if there is a God.
It is therefore your DUTY to follow HIS wishes and use it to the best of your ability.
Lots of talk about the reasons for the rapid rise out of the glacial maximum. Could it be to do with the low level of CO2? Could huge die off of plant life cause a rapid temp rise? Some have suggested dust as the cause, would a lot of dead veg cause a lot of dust?
Here’s another thought: considering the line about Foraminifera expelling Hydrogen, which of course reacts with Oxygen – I wonder if this isn’t where all of the O2 went since the time of the dinosaurs and the 2′ dragonflies? It’s all bound up into limestone.
As it turn out, several recent studies indicate lowered atmospheric CO2 causes a marked decrease in the intelligence of urban millennials (AKA “snowflakes”). Seriously. I read it on the internet.
It’s just science. No arguing with it…
PS: I used to be proud to have contributed (like AlGore, ManBearPig) to the creation of the internet. Now I use a pseudonym and pray no one ever finds me.
More lime production = removal of CO2 from oceans = less CO2 uptake from atmosphere?
Something’s missing.
They have confused caused and effect.
But what if the majority of the organisms can regulate the chemical form of their inorganic carbon by biochemical processes like our foraminifers did, and continue to form lime structures in a more acidic ocean? Over time, the concentration of dissolved carbon dioxide in the oceans may start to increase.
What is missing is their appreciation for increased foraminifera lime production will act to reduce dissolved CO2 in the ocean. It is a buffering process. Therefore it allows for more CO2 update into the oceans than if the process did not exist.
I’m not sure which are more elastic, the forams or the authors.
The authors – by far.
It was necessary to threaten climageddon in order to collect their grant checks. Does it mean that they believe in it? I would hate to think that they do.
” Such an active biochemical regulation mechanism has never been found before.”””
total BS….this has been known for decades
You’re absolutely right. This is textbook knowledge.
Either you have misunderstood the subtleties of the paper (based on a very quick skim), or the reviewers, selected because of their expertise in the field, were unaware that the paper is simply reproducing textbook knowledge I know where my money is.
“Since 1750 the acidity of the ocean has increased by 30%.”
Really!?
So: What was the representative/average (?) ocean pH in 1750? How many measurements were made and under what conditions? What was the range of pHs found? Where were they made – near cities, atolls, coral reefs. Where?
What is the generally accepted average (?) pH today? I have read typical values of pH 7.9 to pH 8.1. And again, the same questions posed above apply as to how it has been measured.
For such a vague statement as “Since 1750 the acidity of the ocean has increased by 30%” those postulating “acidification” need to present some quantitative, confirmed information to support their contention and for others analyze.
Otherwise, they utter only meaningless assertions…
This discusses how the 30% figure was derived, but not the source for the supposed observation of increase:
http://usa.oceana.org/what-ocean-acidification
It claims that CO2 hasn’t been over 300 ppm for at least 800,000 years, but the best evidence shows that’s not the case:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/26/co2-ice-cores-vs-plant-stomata/
GM,
It is my recollection that the claimed value for the pre-industrial seawater pH was obtained with a model. When I was looking into this previously, I was left with some questions about the veracity of the results of the model. In any event, apparently historical pH measurements have been ignored by the climate-science community because of concerns about sampling protocol. However, the same concerns could be raised about sea surface temperatures; however, they haven’t been!
Gloateus Maximus,
That is not the “best evidence”, the best evidence are ice core CO2 measurements, as that are direct measurements of CO2 in air. The only disadvantage is that it is averaged over 10 to 600 years, depending of the snow accumulation rate (and thus the speed with which the pores are fully closed).
Stomata data are proxies, which depend of the average CO2 levels in the local atmosphere (on land) of the previous growing season, which have a bias compared to “background” CO2 levels. That is compensated for by calibrating the stomata data against… ice cores data for the past century.
Local CO2 levels depend of what happens in the main wind directions: growth and decay, change in landscape, agriculture, traffic and industry in recent centuries… Even the main wind direction may have changed in certain periods, like between MWP and LIA…
Thus simply said: if the average CO2 level of the stomata data differs from the average CO2 level in the ice core for a period of at least the resolution of the ice core, then the stomata data are wrong and should be recalibrated againts the ice core data…
Gloateus Maximus,
Forgot to add my comment there:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/26/co2-ice-cores-vs-plant-stomata/#comment-559340
Lots of discussion there and lots of comments between me and mainly Bart, already 7 years ago…
predicted this too… oceans are self buffering systems.
more added acid source = more neutralization from dissovled minerals
The level of atmospheric CO2 could be described as increasing by 30% since 1750.. maybe then in their logic the acidity change HAS to be 30% as well, since the dissolved CO3 rises proportionately. If so, it does not represent the actual PH change, ie, the REAL shift towards acidity.
IMO, it’s incorrect to call forams “shellfish”, since they aren’t animals. They’re protozoan protists, fairly close to animals, but as unicellular organisms, not technically metazoa.
Forams have survived major extinction events and flourished under climates much hotter than now and CO2 regimes much higher for going on 600 million years, so concern over ocean “acidification” (actually slight neutralization or lessened alkalinity) is much ado about nothing.
No! As soon as humans find out about things, they become crisis situations. You know, like when we find a species we thought was extinct for centuries and we suddenly are convinced it will become extinct because we know about its existence now. Humans are sooooo powerful they can wipe out millions of years of existence merely by knowing about it. It’s mind-boggling.
Those who imagine humanity has the power to destroy the world also want to destroy humanity.
GM, to us botanists, there are only autotrophs and heterotrophs. The latter evolved to live off the former, like parasites……..(:
Less alkaline DOES NOT mean more acidic!
Yes it does.
No
It isn’t even possible for the ocean to become acidic.
We all knew that didn’t we.
“Fact: More carbon dioxide (CO2) in the air also acidifies the oceans.”
Not true! Seawater is not distilled water. It is a complex buffer that resists changes in pH, particularly by such a weak acid as carbonic acid derived from CO2 in water. This is part of the junk science being promulgated out there to misinform the public.
It is no surprise that more CO2 leads to more calcification lion. There are two reasons. First, there is a long series of equilibria from CO2 to carbonic acid to bicarbonate ion to carbonate ion to calcium carbonate solid. The protons given off by carbonic acid and bicarbonate ions cannot affect its own equilibrium. An outside source of protons would be a different situation. Second, living cells have cell physiology, and power to control their internal pH is part of this. Marine organisms are quite resilient with external pH changes as photosynthesis is an alkalizing process, raising the pH in a bay or estuary from about 8.4 to 10-11. At night, respiration bring the pH back down. It is also known that the water passing through a coral reef comes out decidedly less alkaline as organic waste is put into the water. Reefs acidify the oceans; oh no, now we have to get rid of the reefs.
As with the global temperature, in which the temperature is changing all day long all over the world, the pH is also changing as metabolic processes of life are constantly living and doing their thing.
The whole concept of ocean acidification is absurd. Oceanic CO2 concentration is more than one hundred times that of the atmosphere, yet the oceans remain stubbornly alkaline. This can only mean that the oceans are buffered, so that minor changes in oceanic CO2 concentration will have almost no effect. Changing the atmospheric concentration by 40%, from about 280 ppm to 400 ppm, will only change the CO2 concentration in the surface layers of the ocean by one or two percent at most. This will have almost no effect whatsoever on oceanic pH.
We know from the GEOSECS program what the oceanic alkalinity and CO2 levels were on a world-wide basis in the 1970’s. In spite of all the foofawraw about ocean acidification, no-one has bothered to go out and make a similar set of measurements again and compare them with the 1970’s data. This suggests to me that the acidifists don’t want to do this in case they get an inconvenient result.
I join with those who think we should not cave to the semantic infiltration of the alarmists. The term “ocean acidification is a term of propaganda, and is always misleading and false. Never use the term seriously or even ironically, without the proper explanation, and never let it stand unchallenged.
If you absolutely must have a two-word phrase, use the far more accurate term “ocean neutralization” instead, even though this term, too, is highly misleading to people who don’t understand how alkaline the ocean really is.
Agreed. I stress this often. “Acidification” is used only to cause panic. It has no other purpose. When referring to what is happening to the ocean, I prefer saying “There is a decrease in alkalinity”.
Sheri, I presume you have no argument with the substance of the paper, or the idea of ocean acidification, but simply object to the terminology. It actually makes no difference to the science if we call it reduced alkalinity or acidification.
Acidification used to be a technical chemical term for adding an acid to another solution to change its pH. Now it has become a political term to scare people, such as in this paper. The same for the 30% term. No chemist would use it because it is the wrong term for describing what happens in a buffer solution. The correct term would be ‘lowers the pH from 8.2 to 8.1’. 30% is a meaningless political scare term.
“Under these conditions the ingested carbon dioxide is again converted to carbonate, which reacts with calcium to form lime. Such an active biochemical regulation mechanism has never been found before.”
Such an active biochemical regulation mechanism was never allowed to be talked of before.
This is both inaccurate (CO2 makes the oceans less alkaline)
and
grossly misleading.
The author of the WUWT post, to promote science truth, would be well served by being more careful in his writing. The way it is written, the above quote is the WUWT author’s own, with the Dutch study results cited below it. This creates a mistaken impression that the author is pro-AGW, thus, risking promoting misleading misinformation.
WUWT does not need to promote the conjecture of AGW to ward off the anti-free speech “net neutrality” police. THIS IS A PRIVATE BLOG. This is not a provider of internet access such as a server or a public forum blog. Further, even if fear of the internet police is why there is quite a bit of this type of apparently pro-AGW writing on WUWT, state what you are doing explicitly, i.e., put a disclaimer with every pro-AGW slanted article to the effect of, “This is junk science — I’m publishing it to satisfy net neutrality.”
I am concerned, for, it creates a shadow over Anthony’s good name (and I still believe he is a man of integrity who thinks CAGW is junk science), for, generally speaking:
Careless and imprecise language is no accident.
It is a conscious attempt to confuse and deceive.
George Orwell
Janice, thanks for your reply. One issue. You quote Orwell, viz:
While this may have been true back in the day when most writers were well-educated, that was before every idiot with a keyboard decided that they were God’s gift to the English language …
These days “careless and imprecise language” is the rule rather than the exception …
w.
Agreed, Willis. In the day and age of the internet, language is fast becoming a casualty of everyone getting their say, no matter how poorly they say it. One even sees it in the news, where a six sentence “story” is considered the norm in some places.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acidosis
We saw it with you and that insufferable
“Steel Shell of Stupid”.
You’ve been a leader in barking pseudo-science till real atmospheric chemistry and radiation specialists can’t even stand to be around when you are.
But you watch and see: we’re gonna bury your fake pseudo-science the way we’re going to bury all the rest of it: NEVER even BLINKING.
You climbed aboard the fake atmospheric sciences train and have ridden it into the ground.
Now the President as well as the rest of us have told you: It’s a scam. End of story, it’s not even partly real.
You’re one of the NON scientists who INSERTED YOURSELF: without qualification or experience in ANY of the fields at hand,
you’re one of the ones we’re going to erase all mention of, and move on trying to forget ever shat on our beloved sciences.
urederra: Acidosis of the body tissues is not the same as a reduction in ocean alkalinity. Some do call an increase in H+ concentration “acidifying” but some also call it getting warmer when it goes from -20° F to -10°F. Technically correct, but logically and rationally lacking. It depends on the definition of “acidification”. The fact remains that the term used in global waming is a scare tactic. There is no reason to not say the ocean is becoming less alkaline except it doesn’t terrify people like “acidic” does. At least with the “warmer”, it’s not designed to scare people.
(Ketoacidosis is a much cooler word, by the way. Check that one out.)
“but some also call it getting warmer when it goes from -20° F to -10°F. Technically correct, but logically and rationally lacking. ” This is really too much. In what way is going from -20F to -10F NOT getting warmer? This is just English for god’s sake. How can you possibly think that going form -20F to -10F is not getting warmer? This is beyond my ability to comprehend. Please, please, please show me why this is logically and rationally lacking when it seems to be absolutely built in the the meaning of the terms.
Anyone who can think that this temperature change is not getting warmer seems to lack any ability to use and understand language.
” -20° F to -10°F. Technically correct, but logically and rationally lacking.”
So at what temperature is it permissible to say that it is getting warmer?
Changing from -20 to -10F is not warming because either one can kill you easily. The weathermen say “tomorrow it won’t be as cold as today, up to -10F “. Saying it’s warming is more appropriate for livable temperatures. I don’t think any arab in the Sahara would say “I’m glad it’s cooler today, only 32C, not 33.”
Some examples:
“Sunspots are darker, cooler areas on the surface of the sun.”
“Fractional distillation
The liquefied air is passed into the bottom of a fractionating column. Just as in the columns used to separate oil fractions, the column is warmer (-185C) at the bottom than it is at the top (-190C).”
The terms warmer and cooler are often used for temperatures outside out normal environmental temperatures.
You are entitled to use words in your own way if you want. What you are not entitled to do is assume bad faith and attempts to deceive if other people use words that comply to normal usage rather than your own peculiar interpretation.
Janice —
It was quite clear to me that the paragraph beginning “From the ‘non-news in the MSM because it doesn’t support the cause’ department…” was by Anthony, and that everything from “Unexpected result” down was from a press release issued by the NOIZ Royal Netherlands Institute promoting a recent article by their researchers, with no endorsement by WUWT.
But given that the final quote from co-author Gert-Jan Reichart makes no sense, it appears that the division of labor was that Lennart de Nooijer provided the science while Reichart was in charge of the obligatory AGW alarmism.
Yes. It isn’t much use castigating “careless and imprecise language” when reading skills are so poor.
Nick: As someone who refuses to watch videos to get my news or science, I agree. Everything is graphs and pictures and videos. The written word is fading fast, even in science and other areas one would not expect.
Urederra – you’ll notice that both pH 7,35 and 7,45 are slightly alkaline. Acidosis is only acidification relative to a norm (7,4). Fun, but please don’t get hung up on the terminology, as people here do every time the subject comes up.
No surprise in the news, but I do love the “WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE ANYHOW” last few paragraphs.
w.
Willis, you put that in quotes, but I do not see that in the article. Nobody said “we’re all gonna die anyhow” These are the exact words I disagree with, and you have invented a quote.
seaice1 January 27, 2017 at 3:58 pm
Only a man looking to pick nits would pretend that what I put up there was supposed to be an actual quote of what they said. Consider the context and the all caps.
Alternatively, you’re too stupid to understand that “scare quotes” are different than regular quotes …
Your choice,
w.
“But what if the majority of the organisms can regulate the chemical form of their inorganic carbon by biochemical processes like our foraminifers did, and continue to form lime structures in a more acidic ocean? Over time, the concentration of dissolved carbon dioxide in the oceans may start to increase. Consequently, the ability of the oceans to take up a large part of the carbon dioxide in the air may start to decrease. This would mean that more carbon dioxide would remain in the air, leading to a more rapid warming of our planet.”
_____________________________________________
Over time, the concentration of dissolved carbon dioxide in the oceans may
not start to increase but stay unaffected because of that little acid hatching foraminifera.
Consequently, the ability of the oceans to take up a large part of the carbon dioxide in the air may
stay the same.
This would mean that
not more carbon dioxide would remain in the air,
leading to a less rapid warming of our planet.”
that some tiny unicellular shellfish make better shells in an acidic environment. This is a completely new
henry says
nothing new about this
I told you just the other day on a similar ocean acidification thread that the bugs in the cooling towers that I was supervising seemed to thrive when the pH went below 7. Presumably lower pH brings more minerals in the water giving them more building material?
HenryP,
And there are lots of organisms that do very well in acidic swamp waters, rich in carbonic acid, humic acid, and other weak organic acids. One of the differences is that fresh water is lacking the strong buffering found in sea water.
Clyde, so the critters do their own buffering? That should only surprise those who get their Degrees from a cereal box…
Jim Steele has athoughtful article on how coral reefs regulate local reef pH through similar biological mechanisms. Is not a surprise that forams do likewise.
In many freshwater streams, the pH is acidic (5.0 in Scotland streams) and freshwater mussels, clams, and microscopic shell forming organisms thrive. The invasive Zebra mussel from European waterways is a prime example. Since pH changes in a broad range in coastal areas daily, the answer to the question of “what will happen to shellfish?” They will adapt.
Previous posts are correct; language has been corrupted by alarmists, and “less alkaline” is labelled “more acidic”, CO2 is called pollution, and those who can demonstrate that climate change is natural are called “deniers”. Perversion of language leads to perversion of thought.
I still take exception to the meme that slightly reducing the pH of a buffered alkaline solution results in it being “acidified”; it is simply less alkaline.
The statement, “…chalk formation becomes more difficult in more acidic seawater.”. is very misleading. Chalk formation in acidic water would be impossible. If the water were to become “more acidic” it wouldn’t make any difference. In any event, truly acidic water is unknown in the open oceans and, because of the strong buffering, no geochemist worth their chalk thinks that it is even possible for seawater to become acidic by natural means.
There is good evidence that different species of calcite/aragonite-forming organisms have differentl optimal pH ranges for producing shells. This probably reflects the prevailing pH conditions during the time the organisms evolved.
Once again, “A pH decline from 8.20 to 8.10, the commonly claimed recent change in seawater, (http://www.whoi.edu/fileserver.do?id=165564&pt=2&p=150429) amounts to a change of -1.2% on the pH scale (-0.1/8.20) and it would take a change of about -15% to reach neutrality (pH = 7). It is disingenuous to cite an equivalent change of 30% in the untransformed active hydrogen-ion concentration (http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/alex-mifflin/oceans-co2-seafood_b_7286392.html) without noting the percentage change required to reach even neutrality, let alone an actual significant acid condition. The alleged change that has occurred in hydrogen-ion concentration is actually about 25% (The value usually cited is rounded up considerably!). It would take a change of nearly 1500% in the hydrogen-ion concentration to reach neutrality. That is, there has been a percentage change of about 1.7% (25/1500) of hydrogen ion concentration necessary to reach neutrality. Inflating numbers and not putting them in context seems to me to be an act of hyperbole that raises a question of objectivity.” [ https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/15/are-the-oceans-becoming-more-acidic/ ]
So much for “Facts.”
“It would take a change of nearly 1500% in the hydrogen-ion concentration to reach neutrality.”
And what happens when you get to “neutrality”. Absolutely nothing – it is of no significance here. An acid-base reaction consists of the transfer of protons (or electron pairs if you use the more general Lewis concept, as you should). It is the transfer of protons to carbonate, and the subsequent dissolution of calcium carbonate, that is the effect being watched. And that has nothing to do with pH 7; it all happens at higher pH, as you say. No use saying to the shellfish – well, we didn’t reach pH 7.
The process of adding any source of protons is correctly described as acidification. There is no pH level that makes that usage inappropriate. Just as adding heat to something is heating. It doesn’t matter whether it is an ice cube or a furnace.
Nick Stokes January 27, 2017 at 11:57 am
Not true in the slightest. There is an entire field of study on “neutralization“, which I clearly remember from high school chemistry. For those who took it, remember measuring pH by a process called “titration”? We’d start out with say a solution of unknown alkalinity. To that solution we would gradually add an acid (a source of protons”) in order to NEUTRALIZE the solution.
So there is a whole field, titration, where “the process of adding any source of protons is correctly described as” NEUTRALIZATION.
I love it when you get on your high horse and start spouting about absolutes, saying that there are none of these, saying things are always some way or another, some kind of absolute statement without any qualifiers. It makes it so easy to falsify your claims.
But the craziest part is watching you wiggle and twist to try to do the one thing I’ve never, ever seen you do—admit that you were wrong on even the most insiginificant point. You seem totally unaware that admitting error makes people respect and believe you MORE, not less. A man who never admits error is a man who can never be trusted.
That process starts in 3 … 2 … 1 …
w.
Nope. An acidic solution has a ph 7.0 it is not an acid, it doesn’t have the properties of an acid, adding protons does not make the solution more of something that it is not.
acidify
[uh-sid-uh-fahy]
verb (used with or without object), acidified, acidifying.
1.
to make or become acid; convert into an acid.
2.
to make or become sour.
Heating is a false analogy. It’s like saying you are liquefying an ice cube by raising its temperature from -50 C to -30 C. Ice and water are different phases with a distinct boundary, just like acid and base, and a warmer ice cube is no more water than a less basic solution is an acid.
Willis,
Yes. And your wiki article goes on to say, in the case of weak acids and strong bases
“The pH of the neutralized solution is not close to 7, as with a strong acid, but depends on the acid dissociation constant (pKa) of the acid.”
With a weak acid (CO₂) here, and a moderate base (CO₃⁻⁻) this is even more true. It is pKa that matters. And for carbonate, that is about 9.13.
Derp, I somehow bungled that sentence badly. That first sentence should read:
An acidic solution has a ph less than 7.0. A base has a ph greater than 7.0, it doesn’t have the properties of an acid, adding protons does not make the solution more of something that it is not.
RWTurner,
“verb (used with or without object)”
Well, if you want to rely on dictionaries, here is Cambridge:
“to become an acid or to make something become an acid”
And their example of usage:
“the problem of ocean acidification”
@ur momisugly Nick Stokes
@ur momisugly Willis Eschenbach
@ur momisugly Everybody else who engages in this debate
I would not respond, except this issue comes up every single time.
stop it. Stop It. STOP IT!
Do you use the “Centigrade” scale or the “Celsius” scale?
Do you use the calorie or the Joule?
Why?
The standards changed, the nomenclature changed. The world changed alongside.
Modern nomenclature (ca. l970s) is when you go from any pH to a lower one, it is called acidification.
This is simply because the concentration of proton has increased. Nothing more, nothing less.
{If Global Warming alarmists exploit the term “acidification” for propaganda purposes, the chemist says “So What”}
Unfortunately, and it pains me greatly to say this:
Nick is right.
Me too. Times changed.
The best sense of the term “neutralization” is currently a process which ends up at a neutral pH, and of course, from either direction.
As an aside:
@ur momisugly Nick
so what is Lowry-Bronsted theory, fish food?
Is your goal to use as much sophistry as possible so that no one even bothers correcting you?
By going with your Cambridge example, you are insinuating that the surface of the oceans are acidic?
Willis – can’t see anything wrong with what Nick is saying. In terms of carbon chemistry pH7 is just an abitrary point, and I just can’t understand this perennial argument about the terminology.
But for what it’s worth, I’ve no doubt that atmospheric CO2 levels aren’t going to change the ocean biota in any significant way.
TonyL,
Thanks for your observation – I’ll be happy to stop it.
“Lowry-Bronsted theory, fish food?”
No, it’s like Newtonian mechanics. Fine when it works, which is mostly. But there are situations where it doesn’t, and this is one. The reaction
CO₃⁻⁻+CO₂+H₂O ⇌ 2HCO₃⁻
is an acid-base reaction. And although protons may be involved in mechanism, they aren’t a reagent. Lewis theory makes sense of this.
Here is NOAA´s tendentious excuse for using scary terminology:
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/A+primer+on+pH
Even the terminology of chemisrty is being corrupted by the CACA conspiracy. Apparently in Newspeak acidify means to increase hydrogen ion concentration and not to make acid. In Oldspeak, increasing proton concentration is a basic solution meant to make it more neutral or less alkaline, not acidic.
Tony, it is simply IMPOSSIBLE to become more of something that you are not. You’re using just as much sophistry as Nick to attempt to make a point.
Every single chemistry book you find will include the definition I provided above. To acidify or acidification involves becoming an acid, and there is a distinct boundary between being a base or an acid. Just like a phase change is a distinct boundary, you aren’t liquefying gas by cooling it down UNLESS there is a phase change, just like you aren’t acidifying a base by decreasing its pH, UNLESS you cross over that boundary where there are more H+ than OH-. There is a distinct boundary that defines the two. Get it? No scientific terminology has changed, just the increased use of misnomers, i.e. calling glacial periods ice ages. Scientists and anyone trying to have a discussion about science should steer away from misnomers.
RWTurner
“you are insinuating that the surface of the oceans are acidic?”
No, and that’s not meaningful to me. I wouldn’t use the dictionary as an authority on chemistry. But you cited it, and I just point out that they also give “ocean acidification” as an example of correct usage.
No Nick, if the pH drops from 8.2 to 8.1, the liquid has become LESS ALKALINE..
or maybe a better term to go with HYPE of the acidification scammers… LESS CAUSTIC. !!. !!
Nick,
A pH of 7 is important because, for the dissociation constant of water, it is the point on the pH scale where there are equal quantities (equal ratio) of hydrogen and hydroxyl ions. It is called “neutral” for the reason that a water solution of pH 7 is relatively unreactive, unlike battery acid. Also, the way that an alkaline solution reacts with metals is different than for an acid solution. That is why the different halves of the pH scale have been given different names, because the different pH regimes behave differently when in contact with other substances. It is not a continuum as with temperature, as you suggest. As the pH is lowered below 7, there is an excess of hydrogen ions that are free to react with other anions that might be present. In the case of a system with carbonate anions, it will shift the equilibrium and cause CO2 gas to be evolved. That is, if you drop an alkaline (or neutral) solution on a piece of limestone, nothing significant will happen. If you drop an acid on the limestone, CO2 will be given off.
So, semantics ARE important because they convey information. If you insist on maintaining that all solutions are “acidic” because there are always some hydrogen ions present, one cannot tell what would happen if you drop your “acidic” solution on a piece of limestone. However, if one uses the conventional and historical definition, it will be obvious as to what the reaction is going to be if one specifies whether the solution is alkaline or acidic. Your naming schema is information poor.
I can see no good reason to maintain that all solutions are “acidic” other than to scare laymen who know nothing about chemistry.
You have brought up the Lewis theory before, and I pointed out at that time that it is not mainstream, and only finds use in special applications. You apparently find it convenient to cling to it to rationalize your revisionist definitions of chemistry.
Clyde Spencer,
“it is the point on the pH scale where there are equal quantities (equal ratio) of hydrogen and hydroxyl ions”
In pure water, or with certain other ions such as Cl⁻. But as noted in the wiki ref Willis cited, as soon as you have a weak acid or base, all that changes, and the neutral point is the pKa of the buffer. The reason is that H⁺ and OH⁻ are present in very small amount, but the weak acid/base is present in large molar amounts, and dominates any acid/base transactions. That is buffering, and pH 7 doesn’t matter any more.
“an alkaline solution reacts with metals is different than for an acid solution”
Not necessarily. Al reacts as well with NaOH as with HCl. And Na with anything. But this is all redox anyway, not acid/base.
“I pointed out at that time that it is not mainstream, and only finds use in special applications”
That’s actually not true. Lewis theory is what we learnt at school. And it’s no more complicated than Lowry-Bronsted; electron pairs are traded instead of protons. It’s just simpler when there is no obvious protonic reagent as here, which is in the end a reaction between CaCO₃ and CO₂.
Oh Nick, even you are resorting to higher authorities now!
The fact is that the term acidification is not important. We could substitute “reducing pH” or “increasing H+” or “reducing alkalinity” and the meaning would be the same. It is pointless to get hung up on meaningless semantics. Everyone who objects to the term please just substitute it for reducing pH and see if it makes any difference to the conclusions. The answer is that it does not. This is not a significant point, merely a distraction for those that need to find something to object to.
seaice1,
If you feel that the terminology is “not important,” then why not stick with the conventional usage of acid and base? Prior to about a decade ago one could not find the term “ocean acidification” in scientific literature. What does the term bring to the table other than possibly scaring those who slept through their chemistry classes?
The summary here is written extremely simplistically.
“The surface layer of the ocean is in equilibrium with the atmosphere.”
What exactly is meant by “surface layer”? The upper 1 meter? Or some other depth? How much mixing occurs between this arbitrarily-defined surface layer and the rest of the ocean’s depths, which average about 3,700 meters in depth world wide? Obviously, the greater the mixing, the greater the mass of seawater at equilibrium compared to the total mass of seawater. In any event, the mass of water that is below the surface layer, however defined, is thousands of times greater than the thoroughly mixed, at-equilibrium surface water layer. Or course there is also the matter of the temperature of the surface water and its resultant effect on the solubility of CO2. Deep ocean currents and upwelling, particularly at the margins of the continents in the direction of those currents, add a great deal of mixing too.
Like everything else in the science of climate change and its affects on the biosphere and geochemistry, and feedback effects from the biosphere and geochemistry on climate, nothing is simple or easy to figure out or model. Way too many processes both macro and micro to fit conveniently into any climate modeler’s computer code.
Duane Truitt January 27, 2017 at 10:46 am Edit
Typically, when such a statement is given without qualifiers it means the “mixed layer”. This is the top thirty metres or so of the ocean. It is the part that is regularly mixed by wind, wave, and nocturnal overturning. As a result, conditions such as pH, salinity, or CO2 content are fairly constant in that region.
w.
Thanks for the generic clarification you cite, Willis. The point is, I think, that non-scientifically literate readers see this stuff as written, and come away with the notion that there is some sort of instantaneous maintenance of equilibrium between atmospheric CO2 concentration and full-water-column oceanic CO2 concentration, which of course is not true and would be a gross oversimplification.
If one assumes a 30 m mixing layer at the surface, as compared to a total water column average depth of 3,700 m, then the ratio of mass at equilibrium to the mass not at equilibrium is 1:123. And I rather expect that a 30m mixing layer is on the high end, given that most ocean waves average only about 1-2m most of the time, except during major windstorms which are only very temporary events.
As the pH is a system buffered with CaCO3/HCO3- the initial assumption that adding CO2 drops the pH and lowers the CO3—concentration is faulty. Until all of the CaCO3 has been dissolved the equilibrium pH in the ocean is going to stay relatively unchanged with the net effect of both HCO3- and CO3—increasing. Thus as CO2 is added to the oceans, the amount of CO3—goes UP, not down. You are increasing the building material concentrations for shell forming species as CO2 is added, so why should it be all that surprising that increasing CO2 actually grows shells faster??
Exactly
Yup – it is carbon, after all, that is getting dissolved into the ocean’s waters.
“You are increasing the building material concentrations for shell forming species as CO2 is added”
But you are dissolving what they are trying to build. The thing is that adding CO₂ shifts the equilibrium toward solution of CaCO₃. And if there isn’t limestone handy, then shells will dissolve.
The article makes it clear that will not happen, Nick. Foram carbonate deposition is an energy-driven mechanism. It does not rely on the equilibrium chemistry of carbonate, and is not subject to it.
It appears that forams actually acidify their immediate environment to change the local carbonate equilibrium in favor of CO2. The dissolved CO2 is neutral and lipophilic, and able to migrate across their cell membrane into the cytosol. Inside the foram, within the cytosol, CO2 is reconverted to carbonate, and shell deposition then proceeds.
That being true, a mild reduction in water alkalinity is to their advantage, because the concentration of dissolved CO2, their active bio-reagent, then increases.
Shell production is all driven by ATP hydrolysis. The biochemistry, like life itself, is a far-from-equilibrium process.
NIck… most shell forming species are crawling around on the floor of the ocean… covered in CaCO3 rich material… not swimming up near the surface.
Nick
the simplified equation for the sinking of CO2 is
Cold + 4H2O + 2CO2 (g) =.> 2HCO3- + 2H3O+
however, if the fact [that you claim to be true] is that earth is getting warmer, net,
then the opposite reaction is what is happening [more]
Heat + HCO3- => CO2 (g) + OH-
i.e. more alkalinity.
Hence, the current warm period is likely to outgas more CO2 [tropics] than it dissolves CO2 (polar regions).
You cannot have it both ways. You cannot claim ocean acidification due to more CO2 if there has been no decrease in global T. Nobody can. What they have “measured” as deviation is even much smaller than the error of measurement. Anyway, how would you take a globally representative sample for pH? It is impossible….
Note that everyday we are drinking carbonated water (soda’s)
and we are doing fine, are we not?
Cheers!
HenryP,
Yes, warming tends to outgas CO₂, and that competes with the rate of addition of CO₂ to the sea resulting from our direct addition to the air. But it is very clear which wins. As Ferdinand patiently explains, you can estimate from glaciations how much a 1°C change raises air CO₂, and it is about 10-16 ppm/°C. We have had getting up to 1°C warming, but our C burning has raised CO₂ in air by 120 ppm. The net flux of CO₂ is into the sea, not out.
“As the pH is a system buffered with CaCO3/HCO3- the initial assumption that adding CO2 drops the pH and lowers the CO3—concentration is faulty.”
Yeah, and you assume that these guys who spend their professional lives studying this have simply overlooked this simple and obvious aspect? Gosh the lack of respect for scientists here pisses me off.
seaice1,
Pat Frank is a scientist.
Scientists disagree all the time, Clyde, sometimes vociferously, and occasionally insultingly.
As a long-time resident at Anthony’s WUWT, I can say from direct experience that scientists are treated well here. seaice1 is taking disagreement, and representing it as disrespect. It’s not.
My reply was aimed at alcheson, not Pat Frank, as you can tell from the words I quoted which were not Pat’s. Apologies if it got into the wrong place.